Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW2 He can change his mind 2 days before boot camp? I thought one signed on the dotted line to go in the service, and that backing out was not an option. Someone please enlighten me.

LW1: Man, this letter makes me sad. A special ed teacher, who sounds like she's not even interested in trying to help the situation, just wants to know how to bar the mentally challenged man from the store!
Maybe parts of the letter were cut out, but have you even tried (cheerfully) addressing the mother when she enters, explaining that you used to be a special ed teacher, and asking if she'd like a little help (and maybe advice)? I can't believe that NONE of your knowledge carries over to adults. Have you asked her if there's anything specific that sets him off in the store? Have you tried asking management if someone else can take over the register, while you show the young man some books he might like? I fully realize that's not exactly your job, but if you have no interest in trying to help him, then, to put it bluntly, I see why you were downsized. Of course, on the other hand, if the man is simply belligerent and pissed off at the world, that's a whole 'nother story, that doesn't really have to do with being mentally challenged, and he should be barred.

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 28 January 2013 (written by George's friend, Canada).

Re: Steve C

That is awfully judgmental. Just because she was a special Ed teacher doesn't mean she (or he) can or should jump in and try to help whenever an adult person with mental disabilities is having difficulties. Frankly, it seems like a good way to hurt or sued, not to mention that she could make things worse by trying to help.

LW1 - I agree with Zoe that there's a difference between being a special ed teacher dealing with children, and dealing with a mentally challenged adult who could become violent. For one thing, she is not in a position now where she was hired to deal with this type of situation, and could leave herself and the book store open to a lawsuit if the man was injured as a result of her interference. It sounds as though she has done everything possible to alleviate a bad situation, and is looking for other ideas. The Annies offered some good ones. I hope they help.

@Steve C, completely different skill set and training, for special needs children in an educational setting, and dealing with a special needs adult as a social worker (which is essentially what you'd be expecting her to be). So it's not at all surprising she's not comfortable -- especially when there might be legal liabilities as well.

The fact is, it's the mother who really ought to be paying more attention to all this; if the son consistently becomes a problem in certain public places, she should be getting additional help from local social services or her son's doctor. What she should NOT be doing is continuing to create difficulties for everyone else, over and over again, by frequenting this establishment without having some sort of better plan for dealing with her son's behavior.

Once or twice i understandable, but if she's bringing him every week and *every* time her son has some kind of meltdown, than she needs to figure something else out.

LW1: I'm not exactly sure HOW to tell the mother her son can't come into the store if he continues to have behavioral issues, but i agree SOMETHING needs to be done.

It's hard to say exactly what condition the son has, but as I'm sure the LW knows (and so does this young man's mother), it's easier said than done to actually manage it, react to medication, etc., let alone predict how he'll behave on a given day. That said, the bookstore's only position in this is how to deal with a situation such as someone becoming violent and/or breaking down on the floor in a tantrum (such as this). If they have policies, great, follow them. If not, then the manager should contact the store's attorney for advice (such as, if he comes in again and poses a major problem, such as a tantrum or other possible situations (throwing things, attempting to flip over the bookshelves, bothering and/or getting hostile with customers, etc.).

I know it's easy to want to give the mother advice, since the LW was once a teacher who dealt with children and teen-agers with various disorders such as autism, Down's syndrome, etc., and know that sometimes they can become very violent (depending on the day, reaction to medicine and given situations, etc.). But as her boss probably told her (and she may be already know, so if so it'd be a reminder), it's not her place to give advice to the mother ... it's her place to give customer service. So it's up to the mother -- who already may have a tough time with her son and probably is doing all she can as well -- to get the additional help, such as contact his doctor, social worker, etc.

And of course, you don't want to lose HER (individually, such as if she comes into the store alone) as a customer. So what to do? That's why I'd suggest the boss/manager handle this and let him contact the attorney or consult their policy manual for dealing with difficult customers.

Good luck -- and yes, if the mother dealing with the special needs son happens to be reading this, good luck to you, too.

I have to agree with everybody else here. The writer of letter #1 seems to me to be very interested in helping this woman, particularly since the young man's meltdowns could be scaring other potential customers off. There is a huge difference between dealing with mentally-disabled children and mentally-disabled adults.

Couple that with the fact that the expectations of a non-profit school district that hired her to specifically deal with the mentally-challenged are not the same as those for a for-profit bookstore makes her uncomfortable with coming up with a solution on her own, lest she open her store up to liability. At the very least, someone with a camera phone would probably capture the "well-behaved" young man being barred from entry with his mother and the whole thing turns viral, publicized out of context on news programs across the country and this store gets attacked for being insensitive to the disabled.

Hence the letter to the Annie's. Hardly an indicator to me that she's not interested in solving the problem.

Sarah, I'm with you on the fellow who was supposed to leave for boot camp and changed his mind. The military may have changed its policy because I was not aware that recruits could change their minds after signing up. Anyone out there able to shed some light on this?

LW2 - I also thought that once someone had volunteered for military service and had progressed to the point of leaving for boot camp, it was too late to change their mind. I'd be interested to hear from some military personnel on this subject.

LW1--I cannot believe the awful answer you got from the idiotic Annies. Sweetie, if you barred every toddler who threw a screaming tantrum from your store, you'd soon be out of business. Let's face the fact that what's irritating you and making you feel uncomfortable is the fact that the person having the meltdown is a mentally challenged adult. So what?!? In case you didn't get the memo, these are people who have rights too. Since you strike me as one of the "pro-life" crowd, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Instead of pretending that you're acting in the interests of your business and your customers, admit that the person who has the problem is you and then try setting a better example. Try being compassionate. The next time this woman and her adult child are in your store and he has a tantrum, go over and show the woman and her son (and your customers and other employees) what it means to be understanding, accommodating and helpful. A warm smile, a gentle touch, whatever it takes to create calm and regain control. You say you have experience dealing with mentally challenged children...use that training.

LW2--I agree with the Annie's. Gifts, cash and other "prizes" showered upon someone under the guise of wedding, engagement, going-away, etc., need to be returned if the guest of honor does an about face at the last minute. Anybody with half brain and an ounce of common sense would realize this and get such items returned as soon as possible. Unfortunately, these days finding common sense in the wild is like locating a flea on the Abominable Snowman. Send an e-mail or text message to this family member and ask point blank for your gift back.

LW3--Stop being naive. Most nosy busybodies are not looking out for their neighbors' security; they're looking out for every single detail of their neighbors' personal business as well as accounting for their comings and goings. These people are either bored, mentally disturbed or both.

How the military thing goes, is you see a recruiter and you do all the paperwork. Then you test and get a job, depending on the job you could wait up to a year to depart. During this time you can change your mind up until the actual day of leaving. The actual day of leaving, you sign your life away and swear into the military, then that is about it. But it is the time before that if you get cold feet you can leave, but if you change your mind again, it will be difficult to get a recruiter to file the paperwork knowing you are a flight risk.
I was part of the delayed enlistment, 6 months, but I went and I am still here 11 years later.

Re: Kcabana4


I also went delayed entry, for the Army. I signed the delayed entry paperwork 2 days after HS graduation. I wasn't scheduled for my final medical exam , oath and departure for basic training until Nov 27th. My brother signed delayed entry paperwork in Oct of his senior year, took final oath 2 weeks after graduation and went to Basic. My older son signed the delayed entry paperwork a week after graduation, didn't go for final oath and basic training until Sept 2. My younger son signed delayed entry paperwork last week. His final medical exam and oath is scheduled for July 9th and his basic training starts July 11th.

Oh, please. A grown male is not the same as a toddler, even if they are at the same level mentally. My brother and late sister were both mentally disabled. I do not take my brother any place I think he might have a meltdown.


Posters can bleat compassion all they want, but try dealing with a large, strong person who has the mentality of a toddler/infant having a tantrum sometime. I'm sorry for the mother and the son. But guess what? There are some places you don't drag someone who cannot behave well.

@ JMM

"Posters can bleat compassion all they want, but try dealing with a large, strong person who has the mentality of a toddler/infant having a tantrum..."

It's called dealing with the general public every single day! Ask anyone in the retail or service industry these days and they'll tell you exactly what it's like dealing with overgrown babies on a daily basis who are prone to throwing tantrums.

"EVERY time he comes in he has a meltdown." The store is opening itself up to a myriad of lawsuits from every directions. The manager or owner should have taken care of this a long time ago. It is not being fair to the employees, other customers or the disabled man to put this off any longer. It is not the clerks job or responsibility to handle this. No one is being unkind, except the mother, in this situation. She needs to be told that until her son is able to conduct himself in an acceptable fashion their attorney has advised them not to allow 'John' to return to the store. They will probably lose her as a customer but it will probably be cheaper in the long run. The store is aware of this behavior and has allowed it to continue and therefore is complicit in the outcome. The LW needs to write the owner a short note, (keep a copy)explaining what she sees as the possible ramifications to the business. She has then done all she can do. She should not intervene in the 'meltdowns'.

I agree with Chris about LW3. Most busybodies these days are not interested in neighborhood security.
To do that, he/she would have to know everyone in the neighborhood, and how many people know all
their neighbors nowadays? I responded to the original post, but my response was printed the next day. We
had someone like that in the neighborhood who spied on us openly. (A nd since he didn't even know our names,
I doubt that he could report any "suspicious" behaviour to us). He stopped spying on us (at least openly) when
we started laughing at him. You have heard of triple x movies? Well, if a movie was made of my life, it would
be rated triple g. We all were so amused that someone would actually watch us so intently when we ate or
went to the video store. I pray that I am never that bored!

@Chris, I'm rather surprised by your take on this. As someone who has worked in service for years, and still do in a more removed way, I would NEVER suggest that it's in a clerk's job description to deal with a volatile mentally challenged adult. Store clerks don't have the training or expertise, and intervening in such a situation can be dangerous- a full grown man having a tantrum can hit or throw things. This isn't "service with a smile-" people who are telling her to intervene are telling her to enter an actively dangerous situation. Do we really think our service people need to do this?

I think your bias here is that this woman is trained to deal with mentally challenged children, but I don't see it holding water here. As others have mentioned, that doesn't necessarily qualify her to deal with an adult, and she is not necessarily in a position to protect herself from a violent situation. In a school, she probably had very clear policies and guidelines for handling different situations with her students. She was probably not expected to take punches on a regular basis as part of her job. At least here in Canada, a particularly out of control child probably would not be in the public school system at all, not even in special ed.

As compassionate as she's trying to be, I do think store security/police are the way to go. Anything less puts her at personal risk and the store at legal risk if he destroys property or hurts someone. And they can be the ones to have the heavy conversation with the mother that if her son can't handle being in the store, he can't be in there.

I surely hope we haven't decided that good customer service means intervening on medical situations well beyond any reasonable training-- for probably close to minimum wage.

Re LW#1------
So who exactly is getting any benefit from the 'mentally challenged' adult being taken to the bookstore? Not the staff------they probably dread the disruptions. Not the other customers-------they will probably leave as quickly as possible and next week if they walk in and see him there again, they will turn around and go back out the door.
Not even the mentally challenged person himself, since he has a melt-down every time he's there.
.
The only person getting any benefit is his mother, who perhaps has no one to spell her while she goes to the bookstore alone, so her only choice, if she wants to get out, is to bring him along.
.
There is a point where the rights of the mentally challenged can't be balanced against the rights of everyone else, and sadly, I think this is one of those points. If he were in fact enjoying his trip there, maybe, but he's not. I'm very sorry for this woman if she has no respite, but I don't think she can make the rest of the world unwillingly share her burden. And an adult male that's throwing himself on the floor COULD very well turn violent, and hurt another customer. Then where is the store insofar as that they allowed this to continue? I know it appears to be lack of empathy, but it's out of balance, and he really should not be in that bookstore unless someone can guarantee the 'meltdowns' will stop------and they can't.
.
There are mentally ill people who are confined to state mental institutions because their condition manifests itself in violence. I can be as sorry for them as the next person, but not necessarily want them next to me in a store, because they can do harm to me. And someone lying on the floor refusing to move could possibly do the same to anyone who tried to interfere. Safety of all trumps his rights, I think. If he were just someone who made loud noises/strange gestures, etc., then, different thing. (Although even lots of noise, in a bookstore where people are quietly trying to look at/read books, is questionable, whether from a 'mentally challenged' person or a 'normal' person.
.
Sometimes if you're disturbing the general public, YOU have to go----not them.

@ Jers

You're absolutely right. When I read the letter, my first take was that the LW was ascribing typical toddler behavior to the mentally challenged adult child, such as begging for items, babbling or talking loudly, or simply pitching a screaming fit when he doesn't get his way. It didn't occur to me that this grown man-child would become physically violent or pose a danger to customers or clerks. I stand corrected. I agree with you in such cases it is best to call the authorities and ask the guardian not to return to the premises.

@ Chris. We can meet in the middle for this one- rereading the letter, it doesn't indicate that he's done anything violent at this point, and we have no idea if he would. The worst she describes is the type of behaviour you mention. Even then though, if the store has no policy for this kind of thing, there is legal risk to be assumed if she intervenes based on past training and it gets ugly.

With letters like this one, I tend to come at them with my dirty lens, as I used to work as a supervisor and have had to reinforce for a number of young and inexperienced staffers that they by no means have to do certain things that were clearly out of their job description or unsafe (and that they absolutely should come to me when in doubt), and that two-dollars-over-minimum-wage is not enough pay to be yelled at or cursed out by customers.

Chris, I don't think calling the authorities in now is the thing to do. That incident is over and certainly could have escalated if the police were called in. I t hink they dodged the bullet on that one. The mother should not be allowed in the store anymore. Starting today! If not they are opening themselves up for many problems.

LW1 -
We're not talking about a four year-old trashing about in a tantrum here. We're talking about a "big and heavy" adult. I have noticed that mentally challenged people can be strong even beyond their appearance, and this man is already quite intimidating.

And we're not talking about an low-accident space, especially designed for special needs people. We're talking about a store, not a large enclosure and full of damageable merchandise.

I'm sorry, but the store cannot ONLY possibly be sued over discrimination. It can also be sued by anyone who would be injured by the antics of this spoiled brat in a big man's body. Someone like the LW describes has the capacity to inflict a lot of damage, to both people and property. Frankly, I'm worried about the safety of the mother, and she could use some professional help.

But the store owner is within his rights to restrict admittance until the man has learned to behave. Rights of the handicapped all you want, they don't include the right to do anything anywhere and to anyone, or break anything any time anywhere. Other people have rights too. And what if he injures himself in one of his tantrums, and the mother decides to sue over that? Things like that have been known to happen, especially since a woman in her position could probably use an unexpected windfall. I would submit the matter to a lawyer if I were that store owner, to make sure all angles are covered.

As for compassion, the people in the store can ask the woman if she has any help and give her some references where to go or call. It seems like she could use some relief. Beyond that, they are not obligated to put themselves, their other patrons and the merchandise that is their livelihood at risk. It is nobody's fault that her son is handicapped and they owe her nothing. What the Annies said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

@Sarah Stravinska #1
The LW states "the kid". It's possible that this is not an adult and that the boot camp is for behavioural problems, not military-based.

@Steve C #2
"A member of our staff suggested to the boss that we make them leave, but I advised against it."
"I also advised against calling the police, because things could get even more physically rough."

If you insist on seeing her like "she's not even interested in trying to help the situation", then you only see what suits you.

We're talking about a big, burly guy here, impossible to control if he runs amok, except with a taser gun. Perhaps YOU would have a chance if you're big and burly yourself, but these women are not. I'm glad the Annies checked with an expert for once and that the medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) was more merciful than you, and commended the LW for her sensitivity. Bouquet and brickbats, the latter coming from you.

For someone who talks so much about helping, you sure ain't sparing any compassion for her. Indeed it is not her place or job to take over the work of a social worker at the present time. Her job description has changed. Apart from the fact that the man is phycically way beyond her capacity to control and that she is trained for children, not adults, her loyalties ought to be to her present employer, not the last.

"To put it bluntly, I see why you were downsized"? That was unnecessarily vicious.

@Bobaloo #7
"I'm not exactly sure HOW to tell the mother her son can't come into the store if he continues to have behavioral issues"
Just like that: "Your son can't come into the store if he continues to have behavioral issues".

@Wordsworth #8
"Someone with a camera phone would probably capture the "well-behaved" young man being barred from entry with his mother and the whole thing turns viral"
Good point. To counter that, they should wait until the next meltdown, capture THAT on video phone and then read the mother the riot act at the next visit.

@Chris #12
Regardless of your wording, you have just exhibited the total lack of sensitivity that many posters hold against you. It is not because "the person having the meltdown is a mentally challenged adult" that she has a problem, but because he is big and heavy, physically impossible to control, and therefore a danger to himself and others.

Try being compassionate, you say? How about she be professional instead? She is no longer a special ed teacher. Her job description has changed. She is now an employee in a book store and, as such, the job she is being paid for is to sell books and protect her boss against harm to his business, NOT take on social worker projects for which she is NOT TRAINED.

"Ask anyone in the retail or service industry these days", you ask? Well, guess what, I'M one of those, and I can tell you that the last thing I would want to be subjected to while I'm trying to make a living is what the LW describes. It's bad enough when you're subjected to a brat toddler, a brat of 200 pounds is way too much.

What Kitty (#5), Mike H (#6), JMM (#15), Penny (17), Jers (#19), and Jennylee (#20) said. Interesting that several posters called you out on this before you finally backed down for Jers. Before that, you were aeguing back and fighting for the right to be wrong.

My neighbors and I do routinely keep an eye on the others property. Has nothing to do with being nosey. Three times in the past year one of us has called the police when something didn't 'look' right. Our neighborhood is fairly spread out - not really a neighborhood. In two of the cases a break-in was diverted. I don't really care what my neighbors do but I sure am thankful that they are there. Actually the good citizens awards should go the our Dogs as they were the one to first 'alert' on the problem.

LW1 - I have an uncle who is mentally disabled. He is in his late 40's but has the mind of a 3 year old. When he throws one of his tantrums, he gets very violent. He doesn't know his own strength. When he was a teenager, he put my grandparents in the hospital several times after beating the crap out of them. Many mentally disabled adults (especially men) do not know their own strength and can do massive physical harm. While the LW didn't mention that this man phsycially hurt anyone, he could very easily turn on anyone. I agree that the store manager should stop the woman once she comes in and tell her that she can't be allowed in until she gets better control of her son. This, in my opinion, is a safety issue. I believe that businesses have the right to refuse service.

We have asked my grandparents not to bring my uncle to family reunions. Why? Because there are a lot of little kids running around and my uncle cannot handle that. When kids start running around, he gets violent with them, grabs them, hits them and tries to get them to stop. You can't expect little kids not to run around outside and instead make them sit at tables and not move. So we ask them not to bring him. Sure, they get mad but we're concerned for the children's safety.

LW2 - He absolutly should return the gifts and money but if he hasn't done it by now then you likely don't have a prayer of getting it back. I would refuse to attend anything for this man in the future and I certainly wouldn't give him another gift.

@ Lise Brouillette
You do realize my dear that my post #19 was a joke don't you?
As for your comments Re: #24, what do you propose we do? Lock all the mentally retarded (gee, did I just use *that* forbidden word) people into institutions and throw away the key so that they don't pose any danger to the rest of us "normals"? Oh wait...we tried that approach @ Lise Brouillette

You do realize my dear that my post #19 was a joke don't you?

As for your comments Re: #24, what do you propose we do? Lock all the mentally retarded (gee, did I just use *that* forbidden word) people into institutions and throw away the key so that they don't pose any danger to the rest of us "normals"? Oh wait...we tried that approach once already and it didn't work. If we are to give these unfortunate souls the same rights as everyone else, then people need to be equipped to ensure that their integration in the real world is successful. That includes people who work in the public sector. I worked retail once upon a time too and we received training on how to handle all sorts of situations including a robbery, hostage situations, inclement weather or someone suffering a medical emergency. I don't recall ever being instructed how to handle a special needs person. Maybe that ought to change.once already and it didn't work. If we are to give these unfortunate souls the same rights as everyone else, then people need to be equipped to ensure that their integration in the real world is successful. That includes people who work in the public sector. I worked retail once upon a time too and we received training on how to handle all sorts of situations including a robbery, hostage situations, inclement weather or someone suffering a medical emergency. I don't recall ever being instructed how to handle a special needs person. Maybe that ought to change.

I don't know why my post #27 is mangled!!!! Weird! Here's how it should have read...

@ Lise Brouillette

You do realize my dear that my post #19 was a joke don't you?

As for your comments Re: #24, what do you propose we do? Lock all the mentally retarded (gee, did I just use *that* forbidden word) people into institutions and throw away the key so that they don't pose any danger to the rest of us "normals"? Oh wait...we tried that approach once already and it didn't work. If we are to give these unfortunate souls the same rights as everyone else, then people need to be equipped to ensure that their integration in the real world is successful. That includes people who work in the public sector. I worked retail once upon a time too and we received training on how to handle all sorts of situations including a robbery, hostage situations, inclement weather or someone suffering a medical emergency. I don't recall ever being instructed how to handle a special needs person. Maybe that ought to change.once already and it didn't work. If we are to give these unfortunate souls the same rights as everyone else, then people need to be equipped to ensure that their integration in the real world is successful. That includes people who work in the public sector. I worked retail once upon a time too and we received training on how to handle all sorts of situations including a robbery, hostage situations, inclement weather or someone suffering a medical emergency. I don't recall ever being instructed how to handle a special needs person. Maybe that ought to change.

Re: Chris

Dear Chrissy Snookums-HoneyPie:

You.

Are.

OBNOXIOUS!!!!!

Geeze Chris, You lose one just to gain another. You are a magnet for... I don't know...just a magnet.

Penny (can`t do the at symbol now, cat walked on my keyboard and did something to it)

I also advised calling authorities. The behaviour described doesn`t escalate to police, but it seems the kind of thing store/mall security are around for, if that is an option. Store security are designed for "disruptive" situations, rather than violent ones. If the man is causing disruption on a regular basis, it would seem reasonable to me to have security escort him and the mother out, and have the unpleasant conversation with her that he can`t be brought into the store if he cannot be managed. But since even NAMI did not advise this route, perhaps I`m reading the situation as worse than it is.

Re: Jers, I haven't seen her around in a while. I thought she had gone or is there an option where you can block people from seeing your post? Thought maybe I had missed a few days and a reason was given. I took this bookstore as being one of the biggies and probably not in a mall and didn't have security as certainly they would have been called the first or second time this happened. Although my first reaction would have been to call the police, after thinking about it I changed my mind. Either way I think the LW should make herself scarce if it happens again. I just see lawsuits written all over this one- from all sides.

Lol NAMI as in the organization cited in the letter, not any poster here. I should have written that more clearly.

I meant to add this to my post, but forgot to at the last moment, but I think you`re right, that these guys don`t have any kind of on-site security, meaning either they have to handle situations themselves or call the police, which seems a little much for the kind of behaviour described. It`s unfortunate, because I think security would be a good "middle option" here between the clerks having to act beyond their depth and training, and "going nuclear" by getting the police involved. It`s a tricky situation.

LW1: The obvious answer to the problem is to call 911 immediately when a meltdown occurs. Any public safety officer will have the tools to handle the situation. Perhaps having a uniformed officer escort the man out of the store will discourage further visits. If not, continue to call the authorities weekly.

Re: Steve C
Just because she USED to be a special ed teacher, doesn't obligate her to save every single special ed person in the world. She has a right to do the job she is now hired to do, and make sure all customers are happy, not just one beliigerent one. I think her letter is as sympathetic as can be, within the confines of her job, and she's already gone out of her way to find ways to be accommodating. There does come a point where it can be a burden on the store, the employees, the customers.

LW1- I agree with those who said that the woman should be asked to not bring her son in to the store any more. The clerk used to be a special ed. teacher. So she was given an individual education plan for each student, that means she knew the nature of each child's disability, and there was a plan to deal with each child's behavior. It sounds like this large man might not only be mentally challenged, but might also have a behavior disorder. We don't know, and neither does the clerk. With some behavioral disorders, if you try to talk them down, as someone suggested, they might become enraged and become more violent. In a case like this, I would stay away and let the mother deal with it. I would assume that she would know how to handle him. Maybe she doesn't, and that is why he gets out of control. But for everyones safety, I think the manager should inform the mother that she may not bring her son to the store.

Re: Chris (#28)

If this special needs man is allowed to continue to come into the store and one day DOES do something unthinkable (e.g., somehow knock over a bookshelf and seriously injure several people during one of his temper tantrums), he very well COULD be locked up.

The problem is that some people think just like you: They have their "rights," no matter what. No matter if we can't predict how they'll behave on a given day. No matter if they're stronger than an ox and can cause quite a bit of damage and/or injure people. The problem is that, no matter what the mother's efforts HAVE been (and I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt -- she's probably tried), this man -- NOT a brat, as someone suggested, because a brat implies a spoiled 4-year-old -- simply cannot behave in public. As I said, it could be because of his medication, the fact that he'd "rather be doing something else" such as watching cartoons ... or anything, but that's not really the store's problem.

And furthermore, Chris, I am sure that the store DOES have a policy in place to deal with situations like this -- i.e., under the "difficult customers" heading. After all, there are likely bullet points to deal with customers who bother/harass other customers and/or the staff, customers who are irate and can't be reasoned with despite efforts to give them good service, customers who damage merchandise deliberately or uncaringly just for the fun of it ... and (as I said) people who have severe behavioral issues such as the customer the LW describes.

The woman wrote in not because she's uninterested in giving good service. She's writing in to ask what she can do /to tell this person's mother that he can't come in until he gets his behavior under control (and as I'm sure anyone dealing with mentally-disabled adults will tell you, that's easier said than done).

Which is why I deferred to the store manager (i.e., her boss) ... and he can figure out the way to inform the mother, either in person or in writing (the latter for sure) that he is not welcome into the store. After all, she's just an employee who is low on the superiority list, and her job is to be a customer service representative, NOT a special education teacher/social worker/aide/handler. The best she may be able to do is advise the store manager on how to address the mother ... and even then he may not necessarily need (or want) her opinion.

Also, you sometimes act as though all you need to do is flip some switch and he'll behave normally. Take away his privileges and he'll get the hint that throwing tantrums in a store and/or getting aggressive is not acceptable. Uh, this isn't a "normal" (for lack of a better term) teenager who is a spoiled brat and you take away her cell phone, computer, other privileges and they'll do better. This is an adult who will always (more than likely) always behave this way, and who may be incapable of change. I know I said "change his medication," but even if that's done there's no absolute guarantee that it will help -- that is, he could become even more violent.

Sometimes, barring him -- even though that may not be the solution you want -- is the only alternative. Sorry, but that's what I and everyone else thinks.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#8)

I agree that the customer is acting like a "spoiled brat." Doesn't mean he should be called one.

Also, with regard to your response to someone suggesting they might just pull out a cell phone and capture him on one of his good days ... yes, I agree that capturing the next tantrum on video might be a good counter. But I'd think that (if this were a national chain) they might already have footage saved of this man's behavior. It all depends on how long the store keeps this all, of course.

LW 1 I've stopped going to some places that allow screaming babies to remain. If I'm paying money for a movie, meal or anything else I will always choose the venue that has the most pleasant atmosphere. I don't want to be around out of control children or adults. The police should be called for a disruptive adult, he could easily hurt other patrons. The police are trained and paid to deal with this kind of behavior.

I have done a quick google search, using the following terms:

"Posted by clemma" site:creators.com

The few times clemma has posted have been to pick on contributors' spelling and punctuation, or to criticize Chris. I recommend we don't feed this troll.

Re: Miss Pasko #40
Good work as usual, and a good suggestion!

LW2: I assume this is a military boot camp, as I don't think they'd have a "going away" party for a teen-ager going to the other kind of "boot camp" with behavior problems. Either way, yes – unless the gifts were consumable and have been consumed, for which there is little that can be done – they need to be returned ASAP, and someone needs to tell them.

Draw straws, I guess if "nobody" wants to be THE one to tell them.

Chris (#28):

"I don't recall ever being instructed how to handle a special needs person. Maybe that ought to change."

Then perhaps YOU can be the one to suggest some changes?

Well, first off, mental illness and mental disability are two VERY different things. It bothers me that both the headline (which I know the Annies didn't write) and the answer convolute them. Regardless of what the man's issues are, I agree that the situation needs to be approached with compassion.
.
I absolutely DO NOT recommend calling 911 or mall security as the first response to a meltdown. Unfortunately, most law enforcement doesn't have the training to deal with mental illness/disability as differentiated from criminal behaviour, and there have been tragic consequences. Most recently, a young man with Down's Syndrome DIED at the hands of police after a misunderstanding that escalated with him being handcuffed and pushed against the floor, cutting off his oxygen. It's not an isolated incident; there are similar stories all over the disability community. I'm sure the LW understands that it's much more preferable to prevent a meltdown than having to call the authorities. (not that it's never necessary, but it should always always always be the last resort...not the first)
.
As the parent of a disabled child (and a disabled person myself), I sympathise with the mother on some level, but I also wonder: how does she deal with her son's public meltdowns, and why would she take him to a place that continues to trigger them? Perhaps she feels she and her son have the right to go out like everyone else... and I agree... but OTOH, it's really a disservice to HIM, to take him somewhere where he can't handle himself, where he might hurt himself and others. In that light, yes, I think the store manager needs to have a word with her.
*
One more thing: calling this man a "spoiled brat" is really unkind and unfair. There's a big difference between bratty behaviour and behaviour caused by illness or disability.

LW1 again:

@ Chris - right on.

@Zoe/Kitty/Mike H:

I will mention that I have worked as a teacher's aide with special ed kids. No, this doesn't make me an expert, but I have some knowledge. (I also have spent alot of time recently helping in a home for women with mental illnesses, but that is a completely different thing.)

Sorry, but the skill set does translate in many ways. My objection is that the LW has absolutely no interest in even trying to alleviate the situation, at all. The suggestions I gave are some things I would try, if the young man comes in calm. If he and his mother simply don't know how to cope with their situation, then this lady is in the position to help, if she WANTS.
Obviously, she has absolutely no obligation to help, that goes without saying.

@Bobaloo: sorry, that's not what "everyone else thinks" except Chris. Not only do I not think she should stay out of the situation, I have said exactly what I personally would do to help - except:
I already gave the qualification that if the man comes in already belligerent and scary, that is a completely different problem. The LW should have some skills to help keep him from becoming belligerent in the first place. Continued:

@Bobaloo and Jers AND Salty:
Of course it's not her PLACE to lecture and give advice. Obviously she is not OBLIGATED to help. She CAN mention to the mother that she used to be a special ed teacher and ask if she'd like any assistance, or ask the young man if he'd like help finding a book etc. Only IF the LW wants, but she doesn't care to. I would never expect someone without any experience with the mentally challenged to try to assist the young man and his mother. I'm surprised this LW doesn't want to go anywhere near them.

Mike H: your suggestions of what the mother should do are good. She didn't write in for advice, so is your advice that the LW should get involved and suggest these things?

@Lise: Advising against calling the police is your version of helping? The LW wants nothing to do with these people and wants to bar them from entering. You and I have discussed this sort of thing in the past - I know that your response to anyone who is really annoying is "run!"; you know that my response is different. Of course I would never expect you to deal with a situation like this. You do not have experience with the mentally challenged.

Regarding the cause of the meltdowns:
I'm (completely) guessing that, since at least one happened at checkout, that the mother isn't buying the young man a book he wants, or also very likely, he really doesn't want to leave, and that the young man enjoys being in the bookstore until then. The LW should have some experience dealing with situations like this. I'm not saying it's safe to do so, I'm not even necessarily saying she SHOULD, I'm just saying it's very odd that she doesn't think she has any skills at all except to keep the young man out.

In re the previous poster who claimed Robert Saylor was killed due to a "misunderstanding" by police in a theatre:

There was no "misunderstanding." The police responded with unnecessary brutality over a $12 theatre ticket. The Grand Jury declined to indict the police. I would guess that there was a great deal of the same type of sentiment as expressed in these comments . . .

People with disabilities are uncomfortable to be around

People with disabilities are often violent (NOT TRUE)

People with disabilities should not be out in public

For all of you--people with disabilties have just as much right as you to be anywhere in society. If they cannot follow the rules then they can expect to be treated the same as anyone else. That means if the police are called, they will not be brutalized and killed but instead handled with appropriate measures--not hogtied, slammed down to the ground, with three pairs of handcuffs, while the victim was calling for his mother.

@Steve, not necessarily -- you see, being a special ed teacher in a school gives you certain professional credential, professional support, and professional cover for how you work with special ed kids.

Being a clerk in a bookstore, however, does none of the above. Any interaction or advice she gives, should it go wrong or be misinterpreted, would leave the LW open for some serious legal liability.

Dealing with kids is not the same as dealing with adults. Sure, there may be *some* overlap, but there's plenty of non-overlap as well. In addition, a special ed teacher gets a history, develops a rapport, and meets with the parents and other caretakers because they have a responsibility; a clerk in a bookstore also has none of that, even if there is some training from a previous job that may give *some* insight, it's still an insight that will be handicapped by how much the clerk doesn't know about the situation.

LW doesn't seem callous at all, but rightfully cautious about overstepping boundaries. SInce this is a consistent problem ("Every time they are here"), she's looking for a solution for her work situation, which is (and should be) her primary concern.

No one is suggesting having the developmentally delayed (yet another term) locked up. We suggest that anyone who cannot behave themselves in certain places NOT go to those certain places.

If you scream and yell in a movie - the theater people will kick you out. If you throw a tantrum in a bookstore, they should call security and have you escorted out.

Mom needs to get her son help. What happens when she gets too old and frail to take care of him?

I've worked with DD people for years - if they are out of control, we are supposed to stop them and/or call the proper authorities to keep them from harming themselves or others.

And how is the mother going to feel if her son hurts someone? He WILL be locked up - not in a jail, I hope, but he will be taken from her if she can't control him.

Re: Steve C (#44)

If she wants to go to her boss and offer advice and/or suggestions on dealing with mentally disabled people who become belligerent, that's one thing. Like I said, he can accept it or tell her that her opinion isn't necessarily wanted.

She may have some skills to keep people like this customer calm ... except she probably doesn't know that much about him, meaning him personally. That is, how he reacts to his medications, what mood he's in, whether he wants to be there in the first place ... much less what books would make him happy without asking his mother. This is different than working with children having multiple disabilities in school, as she has access to or at least knowledge of those students' IEPs, knows their medications, knows what makes them "tick" (i.e., what makes them upset, how they react to meds, etc.), and so on.

And while it's a given that this man could cause a lot of damage and injure people ... exactly the extent of what he is capable of is an unknown or how he might decide to inflict that damage – that could be anything from simply throwing books around and tearing their pages (simple damage of merchandise, which admittedly can be covered by the store's insurer) to grabbing another customer service rep and smashing her head into a nearby plate glass window (i.e., seriously injuring someone, opening the store up to a huge lawsuit) just because she's standing nearby when he begins to throw his fit ... to anything in between.

There is so much that she is NOT TRAINED to do, and she's admitted as much. Hence, "I'm used to dealing with special needs kids in a school, but not adults in a retail establishment." Two different things.

Also, I don't think the LW is necessarily saying she "wants nothing to do with these people and wants to bar them from entering." She might say that if it were, say, someone coming in to make trouble (e.g., harass the customers and CSRs, loudly and rudely complain about the lack of specific merchandise they wanted to buy), but there is no evidence the mother – or even her son – intend to make trouble. There's not even an indication she wants to kick the MOTHER out – just the son, so long as he's unable to manage his behavior. But it's still a situation that needs to be dealt with professionally.

Re: Michelle #26
Not only do they not know their own strength, but that very strength is often more than it looks.

My ex Fred operates a long-term, chronic-care centre for juveniles with special needs. I'm on call for him as a cook, but I'm also expected to help with the kids as needed. One of his charges is an 8 year-old boy with brain damage. He is the physical size of a 4 year-old, with the physical strength of of 12+ year-old. I've nicknamed him Starfish Hands (Google "starfish strength" to find out the power in them five arms). You have no idea of the strength he can exhibit. When he REALLY doesn't want to do something, it takes two people to control him. And he's only eight.

The boy is extremely loveable... But I shudder to think what it'll be like when he's adult.

@Chris #27
Well, for openers, post #19 was Jers', not yours, and if I assume you're referring to your post #12, NO, I didn't "realise" it was a "joke", nor did I have any reason to since it sure didn't look like one, the proof of which, I'm not the only one who called you on it. And if it was a joke, why then did you back down with Jers, instead of yelling "APRIL'S FOOL'S!"? Not to mention that you've sure been fighting for the right to be wrong since...

But... to go on with the rest of your post:
"then people need to be equipped to ensure that their integration in the real world is successful."
Sorry, but that doesn't always work. The safety of the majority does trump the rights of the one. And sorry, but as a one-person business operator, self-employed person, I am NOT professionally trained to deal with adult-sized, tantrum-pulling toddlers, nor should I be expected to be.

@Jers #33
Penny suggest a big-chain store, but it may very well be a small independent book store with just one or two clerks in attendance on top of the owner. Places like that cannot afford professional security.

@Bobaloo #38
Large chains may already have that footage indeed but, as I told Jers, we have no indication that it's a large chain, It could very well be one of those neighbourhood independent book stores.

I didn't mean to call him a brat directly ... but rather to imply that he's acting like one. Subtle difference.

@Chris, re Miss Pakos's post #40
Congratulations, you've attracted your own troll, YOU'VE ARRIVED! ;-D

@outoutout #43
I truly meant no disrespect, but keep in mind that bratty behavour is bratty behaviour, whether it comes from a spoiled rotten 3 year-old, or a mentally disabled adult-year old. Whether the fault lies with the parent's coddling or with no one, because the person is mentally handicapped, changes nothing to the bratty behaviour. Do keep that in mind.

@Steve C #44
"if the man comes in already belligerent and scary, that is a completely different problem"
A man that size could very well be scary to the LW, and a man throwing himself on the floor and refusing to move can EASILY become "belligerent" and extremely dangerous.

And you're perfectly right that I'm not equipped to deal with a situation like this. Your mistake is to think that the LW is, because she used to be a special ed teacher to children. And it's not fair - mentally disabled children are not the same as mentally disabled adults.

@delorisdelio #45
Yes, people with disabilities shoulf definitely not be "brutalized and killed but instead handled with appropriate measures--not hogtied, slammed down to the ground, with three pairs of handcuffs, while the victim was calling for his mother." You're right about that. Now, to address some of your statements:

"People with disabilities are often violent (NOT TRUE)"
I wouldn't say they are OFTEN violent, but they can be.

My sister-cousin once had a boyfriend who was a true soul-mate - she knew when his soul left the world of living. They were planning marriage and children. He was helping, on a volunteer basis, mentally "challenged" people with their reinsertion in society.

He was found dead, with his heart carved out and a folded piece of paper inserted in instead, by one of the young men he was trying to help. The culprit had been professionally assessed as being non-violent and totally harmless.

Some years ago, a little girl went missing. She was found very shortly, tied to a tree and dead of exposure. Subsequent police inquiry established that she had been tied there by some "mentally challenged" physically adult guy with a mental age the equivalent of the little girl (no sex involved), who was just trying to play and somehow panicked. The trial found him not responsible due to mental illness, AND, he had been professionally assessed as being non-violent and totally harless. Guess what - the little girl is still dead.

I'm giving these two cases -there are plenty of others. And guess what? It is because of "incidents" like this that
"people with disabilities are uncomfortable to be around". Sorry about that, but I think it's quite justified. I'm DEFINITELY not an intolerant person, and I certainly woudn't wish harm on anyone, disabled or not. But I do have a problem with being forced in the vicinity of someone whose behaviour I can absolutely not predict. Imagine that, I don't want to be found with a piece of paper where my heart used to be, how intolerant and bitchy of me.

No, I don't think that "people with disabilities should not be out in public", but I do believe that store-owners have a right to restrict access to a "big, heavy" adult who's behaving like a toddler pulling a tantrum, if only to protect the other people present. Just like any other child of his mental age, he is expected to behave in public.

Re: Bobaloo #49
"(simple damage of merchandise, which admittedly can be covered by the store's insurer)"
I can attest that there are many stores who can't afford that kind of insurance. When I had a store, the only insurance I could "afford" was the one I was not legally allowed to operate without - liability insurance to customers. Anything else- fire, vandalism, burglary, damage by crazy customers etc, was out of my reach. And, given the present economy, I would wager this goes for most one-person operated businesses.

Erratum -

"He was found dead, with his heart carved out and a folded piece of paper inserted in instead, by one of the young men he was trying to help. The culprit had been professionally assessed as being non-violent and totally harmless."

Reading this back, I realise this is leading to confusion. Corrected text:
He was found dead, with his heart carved out and a folded piece of paper inserted in instead. Subsequent policy inquiry established that he had been murdered by one of the young men he was trying to help (God only knows what the motive, "trigger" of whatever, was...) The culprit had been professionally assessed as being non-violent and totally harmless.

Lise, I offered up the assertion that it May be a large chain book store as the 'Little Book Stores' seem to have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Even Border's is now gone. The tablet and Kindle have destroyed the little guy.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#50 and #51)

For independent bookstores, perhaps the cost of insurance is too high. Same with the in-store security system.

For some reason, as I was typing my posts ... I thought of this store as a Barnes and Noble or other regional/national chain. (Since indeed there is no indication about the store itself.) Penny is (sadly) right – with a few exceptions, independent book stores are unable to compete with B&N/the Kindle.

Just how I saw it, I guess.

"I didn't mean to call him a brat directly ... but rather to imply that he's acting like one. Subtle difference."

Well, OK then ... . I guess I see a difference between a spoiled teen-aged brat who (for instance) throws a tantrum as she's getting grounded and/or otherwise not getting her way, and the behavior of the customer because he's incapable of knowing how to manage his behavior.

Re: Penny
Move to Montreal. The little book store sure ain't dead here. And then, there are the used book stores. Plenty of them! There are even streets where there is a concentration of them.

I say the store owner is completely within their rights. If you can't control the situation, why foist it on someone else? The woman obviously knows her sons behavior is a problem.

Well, Lise, using your logic that you know of instances where people with intellectual disabilities are often violent, we should ban the entire public from public places. Often mothers are known to be violent. Shall I refer to Susan Smith who drowned her two sons over a lover? Often fathers are known to be violent. Look in the newspaper--there are killings and maimings and beatings every day.
Why not ban teenagers? Wow, just read a story where two boys killed a toddler in a pushchair because the mother didn't give them money.
Why not ban black people? Statistics prove that 'many' of them are often violent. Just look at the number of black people in jail.
But, there are white people in jail, too--why not prohibit all white people from public places?
Of course, there are the Japanese. Let's ban them--just think of what they did during the Rape of Nanking.
Your logic is flawed. People are individuals and EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL has rights. You are not the king. You are not the dictator to say who can or cannot be in public.

Oh, and by the way, folks--people with intellectual disabilities are not mentally ill. These second rate advice columnists are woefully ignorant about the world--and obviously, some of the commenters are as well.

Re: delorisdelio
"Well, Lise, using your logic that you know of instances where people with intellectual disabilities are often violent, we should ban the entire public from public places."
I *specifically said*, "No, I don't think that "people with disabilities should not be out in public". I guess you're too busy going nuclear on me that you forgot to read my post #48, and a few other things besides.

The rest of your post is so busy being hyperbolic that, in your quest to make me look ridiculous, you're the one who's not making sense. Speaking of flawed "logic"...

And yes, all individuals have rights, but so do I. The rights of your beloved intellectually disabled/mentally ill/whatever do not include putting my property or other people at risk. Those other people also have rights, imagine that. Even a toddler is capable of learning manners.